Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-v9xhf Total loading time: 0.707 Render date: 2022-05-19T20:03:05.649Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Path Dependency and Governance in German Family Firms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2012

Abstract

Dynastic family businesses pursue a double aim. They strive for economic success and attempt to shield the family's longterm influence against outsiders. As a consequence, their choice of governance reflects an idiosyncratic balance between remaining independent and tapping into the opportunities of the market. Autonomy-oriented “closed” governance can lead to problems in integrating external capital and knowledge. More market-oriented “open” governance can make a firm more vulnerable to outside influence. German family firms have struck a balance between the two models since the mid-nineteenth century. Their choice of governance is a response to the challenges and opportunities of the environment, and at various times they are influenced by corporate law, alternative finance options, and inheritance law.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The President and Fellows of Harvard College 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This article was written with the support of a Harvard-Newcomen Fellowship at Harvard Business School. The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers, as well as Tom Nicholas, John Turner, Mark Stoneman, and Jessica Csoma, for their insightful comments and suggestions.

1 Family firms have been labeled “dynastic” when they try to maintain a long-term family influence. Casson, Mark, “The Economics of the Family Firm,” Scandinavian Economic History Review 47, no. 1 (1999): 1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 For a discussion of these control issues, see Wolfenzon, Daniel and Almeida, Heitor, “A Theory of Pyramidal Ownership and Family Business Groups,” Journal of Finance 61, no. 6 (2006): 2637–80Google Scholar; Colpan, Asli M., Hikino, Takashi, and Lincoln, James R., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Business Groups (Oxford, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Villalonga, Belén and Amit, Raphael, “How Are U.S. Family Firms Controlled?Review of Financial Studies 22, no. 8 (2009): 3047–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 For the professionalization of management, see Dyer, W. Gibb, “Integrating Professional Management into a Family Owned Business,” Family Business Review 2, no. 3 (1989): 221–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gedajlovic, Eric, Lubatkin, Michael H., and Schulze, William S., “Crossing the Threshold from Founder Management to Professional Management: A Governance Perspective,” Journal of Management Studies 41, no. 5 (2004): 899912CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the importance of adoption in Japanese family firms, see Mehrotra, Vikas et al. , “Adoptive Expectations: Rising Sons in Japanese Family Firms,” NBER Working Paper Series 16874 (2011)Google Scholar.

4 Corporate governance is defined as “the system by which companies are directed and controlled.” See Cadbury, Adrian, Corporate Governance and Chairmanship: A Personal View (Oxford, 2002), 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 For the extensive debate over definitions of the family firm, see Colli, Andrea and Rose, Mary B., “Family Business,” in The Oxford Handbook of Business History, ed. Jones, Geoffrey and Zeitlin, Jonathan (Oxford 2008), 194218Google Scholar; Howorth, Carole, Rose, Mary B., and Hamilton, Eleanor, “Definitions, Diversity and Development: Key Debates in Family Business Research,” in The Oxford Handbook of Entrepreneurship, ed. Casson, Mark et al. (Oxford, 2006), 225–47Google Scholar; Astrachan, Joseph H., Klein, Sabine B., and Smyrnios, Kosmas X., “The F-PEC Scale of Family Influence: A Proposal for Solving the Family Business Definition Problem,” Family Business Review 15, no. 1 (2002): 4558CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sharma, Pramodita, “An Overview of the Field of Family Business Studies: Current Status and Directions for the Future,” Family Business Review 17, no. 1 (2004): 136CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Franks, Julian, Mayer, Colin, and Wagner, Hannes F., “The Origins of the German Corporation: Finance, Ownership and Control,” Review of Finance 10 (2006): 545CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977)Google Scholar; Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge, Mass., 1990)Google Scholar. For the reception of his work, see Whittington, Richard and Mayer, Michael, The European Corporation: Strategy, Structure, and Social Science (Oxford, 2000), 2346Google Scholar. For the separation of ownership and control, see also Berle, Adolf A. and Means, Gardiner C., The Modern Corporation and Private Property (New York, 1932)Google Scholar.

8 Jones, Geoffrey and Rose, Mary B., “Family Capitalism,” Business History (Special Issue on Family Capitalism) 35, no. 4 (1993): 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Church, Roy, “The Family Firm in Industrial Capitalism: International Perspectives on Hypotheses and History,” Business History 35, no. 4 (1993): 1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Colli, Andrea, The History of Family Business, 1850–2000 (Cambridge, U.K., 2003)Google Scholar; Colli, Andrea and Rose, Mary B., “Family Firms in Comparative Perspective,” in Business History Around the World at the Turn of the Century, ed. Amatori, Franco and Jones, Geoffrey (Cambridge, U.K., 2003), 339–52Google Scholar; Colli, Andrea, Pérez, Paloma Fernández, and Rose, Mary B., “National Determinants of Family Firm Development? Family Firms in Britain, Spain, and Italy in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” Enterprise & Society 4, no. 1 (2003): 2864CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berghoff, Hartmut, “The End of Family Business? The Mittelstand and German Capitalism in Transition, 1949–2000,” Business History Review 80, no. 2 (2006): 263–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Rose, Mary B., Firms, Networks, and Business Values: The British and American Cotton Industries since 1750 (Cambridge, U.K., 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Scranton, Philip, Proprietary Capitalism: The Textile Manufacture at Philadelphia, 1800–1885 (Cambridge, U.K., 1983)Google Scholar; Casson, “Economics of the Family Firm”; Kocka, Jürgen, “The Entrepreneur, the Family, and Capitalism: Examples from the Early Phase of German Industrialization,” in Industrial Culture and Bourgeois Society: Business, Labor, and Bureaucracy in Modern Germany, 1800–1918, ed. Kocka, Jürgen (New York, 1999), 103–38Google Scholar.

10 James, Harold, Family Capitalism: Wendels, Haniels, Falcks, and the Continental European Model (Cambridge, Mass., 2006)Google Scholar; Cassis, Youssef, Big Business: The European Experience in the Twentieth Century (Oxford, 2000)Google Scholar; Arnoldus, Doreen, Family, Family Firm and Strategy: Six Dutch Family Firms in the Food Industry, 1880–1970 (Amsterdam, 2002)Google Scholar.

11 Lipartito, Kenneth and Morii, Yumiko, “Rethinking the Separation of Ownership from Management in American History,” Seattle University Law Review 33, no. 4 (2010): 1025–63Google Scholar; Scranton, Philip, Endless Novelty: Specialty Production and American Industrialization, 1865–1925 (Princeton, 1997)Google Scholar.

12 Scranton, Capitalism; Scranton, Endless Novelty; Jones and Rose, “Family Capitalism”; Piore, Michael J. and Sabel, Charles F., The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity (New York, 1984)Google Scholar.

13 Nicholas, Tom, “Clogs to Clogs in Three Generations? Explaining Entrepreneurial Performance in Britain since 1850,” Journal of Economic History 59, no. 3 (1999): 688713CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bennedsen, Morten et al. , “Inside the Family Firm: The Role of Families in Succession Decisions and Performance,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 122, no. 2 (2007): 647–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Colli and Rose, “Family Firms in Comparative Perspective”; Family Business Review, the first scholarly journal devoted to family business studies, started off with a strong business history focus. See Hall, Peter D., “A Historical Overview of Family Firms in the United States,” Family Business Review 1, no. 1 (1988): 5168CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 La Porta, Rafael, Lopez-de-Silanes, Florenco, and Shleifer, Andrei, “Corporate Ownership Around the World,” Journal of Finance 54, no. 2 (1999): 471517CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Morck, Randall K., ed., A History of Corporate Governance Around the World: Family Business Groups to Professional Managers (Chicago, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Whittington and Mayer, The European Corporation; Barca, Fabrizio and Becht, Marco, eds., The Control of Corporate Europe (New York, 2001)Google Scholar; Franks, Julian and Mayer, Colin, “Ownership and Control of German Corporations,” Review of Financial Studies 14, no. 4 (2001): 943–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 See the contributions in Colpan, Hikino, and Lincoln, eds., Oxford Handbook of Business Groups. For Japan, see Goto, Toshio, “Longevity of Japanese Family Firms,” in Handbook of Research on Family Business, ed. Poutziouris, Panikkos Zata, Smyrnios, Kosmas X., and Klein, Sabine B. (Cheltenham, U.K., 2006), 517–34Google Scholar; Morikawa, Hidemasa, Zaibatsu: The Rise and Fall of Family Enterprise Groups in Japan (Tokyo, 1992)Google Scholar.

18 Colpan, Hikino, and Lincoln, eds., Oxford Handbook of Business Groups; Wolfenzon and Almeida, “Theory of Pyramidal Ownership.”

19 Xu'nan, Feng, “Dividends and Tunneling: Evidence from Family Firms in China,” China Finance Review International 1, no. 2 (2011): 152–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Johnson, Simon et al. , “Tunneling,” American Economic Review 90, no. 2 (2000): 2227CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Holderness, Clifford G., “The Myth of Diffuse Ownership in the United States,” Review of Financial Studies 22, no. 4 (2008): 1377–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the vast literature on the separation of ownership and management, see Hannah, Leslie, “The ‘Divorce’ of Ownership from Control from 1900 Onwards: Re-calibrating Imagined Global Trends,” Business History 49, no. 4 (2007): 404–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lipartito and Morii, “Rethinking the Separation of Ownership from Management.” For a critical assessment concerning the U.S., see also Cheffins, Brian R. and Bank, Steven A., “Is Berle and Means Really a Myth?Business History Review 83, no. 3 (2009): 443–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Anderson, Ronald C. and Reeb, David M., “Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence From S&P 500,” Journal of Finance 58, no. 3 (2003): 1301–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Villalonga, Belén and Amit, Raphael, “How Do Family Ownership, Control and Management Affect Firm Value?Journal of Financial Economics 80 (2006): 385417CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 James, Family Capitalism; Colli, History of Family Business; Colli and Rose, “Family Firms in Comparative Perspective”; Lubinski, Christina, Familienunternehmen in Westdeutschland: Corporate Governance und Gesellschafterkultur seit den 1960er Jahren (Munich, 2010)Google Scholar; Landes, David S., Dynasties: Fortunes and Misfortunes of the World's Great Family Businesses (New York, 2006)Google Scholar; Arnoldus, Family, Family Firm and Strategy.

23 The distinctiveness of family firms has been the subject of intense debate lately, leading to the resource-based view of the family firm. See Habbershon, Timothy G. and Williams, Mary L., “A Resource-Based Framework for Assessing the Strategic Advantages of Family Firms,” Family Business Review 12, no. 1 (1999): 125CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hoy, Frank and Verser, Trudy G., “Emerging Business, Emerging Field. Entrepreneurship and the Family Firm,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 19, no. 1 (1994): 923CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the special issues of Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 27, no. 4 (2003)Google Scholar, and Journal of Business Venturing 18, nos. 4 and 5.

24 See, for example, Hall, Annika, Melin, Leif, and Nordqvist, Mattias, “Understanding Strategizing in the Family Business Context,” in Handbook of Research on Family Business, ed. Poutziouris, Panikkos Zata, Smyrnios, Kosmas X., and Klein, Sabine B. (Cheltenham, U.K., 2006), 253–68Google Scholar; Corbetta, Guido and Salvato, Carlo A., “Self-Serving or Self-Actualizing? Models of Man and Agency Costs in Different Types of Family Firms: A Commentary on ‘Comparing the Agency Costs of Family and Non-family Firms: Conceptual Issues and Exploratory Evidence,’Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28, no. 4 (2004): 355–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 In 2003, they accounted for more than half of the employment in Germany, which is similar to the situation in the United Kingdom, Finland, the Netherlands, and Iceland, but different from all the other European Union countries. See Kommission, Europäische, KMU im Brennpunkt: Hauptergebnisse des Beobachtungsnetz der europäischen KMU (Luxemburg, 2003)Google Scholar.

26 Faccio, Mara and Lang, Larry H. P., “The Ultimate Ownership of Western European Corporations,” Journal of Financial Economics 65, no. 3 (2002): 378CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Fohlin, Caroline, “The History of Corporate Ownership and Control in Germany,” in A History of Corporate Governance Around the World: Family Business Groups to Professional Managers, ed. Morck, Randall K. (Chicago, 2005), 223–77Google Scholar; Franks and Mayer, “Ownership and Control of German Corporations.”

28 Klein, Sabine B., “Family Businesses in Germany: Significance and Structure,” Family Business Review 13, no. 3 (2000): 157–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hauser, Hans-Eduard and Wolter, Hans-Jürgen, Die volkswirtschaftliche Bedeutung der Familienunternehmen: Untersuchung im Auftrag der Stiftung Familienunternehmen (Bonn, 2007)Google Scholar; Günterberg, Brigitte and Kayser, Gunter, SMEs in Germany: Facts and Figures 2004 (Bonn, 2004)Google Scholar.

29 For studies on publicly traded German corporations, see La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, and Shleifer, “Corporate Ownership Around the World”; Franks and Mayer, “Ownership and Control of German Corporations.”

30 Smith, Eric Owen, The German Economy (London, 1994), 354CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Johnson et al., “Tunneling”; Dyck, Alexander and Zingales, Luigi, “Private Benefits of Control: An International Comparison,” Journal of Finance 59, no. 2 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Demsetz, Harold and Lehn, Kenneth, “The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences,” Journal of Political Economy 93 (1985): 1155–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Weber, Max, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology: Edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, vol. 1 (Berkeley, 1978), 98Google Scholar.

33 Ibid., 98.

34 Fohlin, “History of Corporate Ownership and Control in Germany,” 224.

35 Kocka, “The Entrepreneur, the Family, and Capitalism”; Schäfer, Michael, Familienunternehmen und Unternehmerfamilie: Zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der sächsischen Unternehmer, 1850–1940 (Munich, 2007)Google Scholar.

36 Fohlin, “History of Corporate Ownership and Control in Germany”; Fohlin, Caroline, “Relationship Banking, Liquidity and Investment in the German Industrialization,” Journal of Finance 53 (1998): 1737–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hannah, “ ‘Divorce' of Ownership from Control,” 406.

37 Franks, Mayer, and Wagner, “Origins of the German Corporation,” 540; Burhop, Carsten, “The Underpricing of Initial Public Offerings in Imperial Germany, 1870–1896,” MPI Collective Goods Preprint 2008, no. 46Google Scholar. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com, no. a bstract=1311265 (2008).

38 Franks, Mayer, and Wagner, “Origins of the German Corporation,” 540–42.

39 Fohlin, “History of Corporate Ownership and Control in Germany.”

40 Guinnane, Timothy et al. , “Putting the Corporation in Its Place,” Enterprise & Society 8, no. 3 (2007): 694CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 About the period, see Feldman, Gerald D., The Great Disorder: Politics, Economics, and Society in the German Inflation, 1914–1924 (New York, 1993)Google Scholar.

42 Ziegler, Dieter, “Kontinuität und Diskontinuität der deutschen Wirtschaftselite, 1900–1938,” in Großbürger und Unternehmer: Die deutsche Wirtschaftselite im 20 Jahrhundert, ed. Ziegler, Dieter (Göttingen, 2000), 42Google Scholar.

43 Rheinisch-Westfälisches Wirtschaftsarchiv (RWWA), Bagel Archives 236-2 Reden und Ansprachen Peter Bagels; Barleben, Ilse, Von der schwarzen und von der weißen Kunst: A. Bagel, 1801–1951 (Düsseldorf, 1951), 96Google Scholar.

44 Joly, Hervé, Großunternehmer in Deutschland: Soziologie einer industriellen Elite, 1933–1989 (Leipzig, 1998), 111Google Scholar.

45 Lamoreaux, Naomi R., “Scylla or Charybdis? Historical Reflections on Two Basic Problems of Corporate Governance,” Business History Review 83 (2009): 934CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guinnane et al., “Putting the Corporation in Its Place,” 697–702.

46 On “entity” and “owner shielding,” see Hansmann, Henry, Kraakman, Reinier, and Squire, Richard, “Law and the Rise of the Firm,” Harvard Law Review 119 (2006): 1335–403Google Scholar.

47 Guinnane et al., “Putting the Corporation in Its Place,” 703.

48 Bruns, Carl Georg, “Über Testirfreiheit und Pflichttheil,” in Kleinere Schriften, vol. 2, ed. Bruns, Carl Georg (Weimar, 1882), 139–91Google Scholar; Beckert, Jens, Inherited Wealth (Princeton, 2008)Google Scholar.

49 Mertens, Hans-Georg, Die Entstehung der Vorschriften des BGB über die gesetzliche Erbfolge und das Pflichtteilsrecht (Berlin, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Hütte, Rüdiger, Der Gemeinschaftsgedanke in den Erbrechtsreformen des Dritten Reichs (Frankfurt, 1988)Google Scholar.

51 Wischermann, Clemens, “Die Erbschaftsteuer im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik: Finanzprinzip und Familienprinzip,” in Steuern, Abgaben und Dienste vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, ed. Schremmer, Eckart (Stuttgart, 1994), 177Google Scholar.

52 Beckert, , Inherited Wealth, 193Google Scholar.

53 Ullmann, Hans-Peter, Der deutsche Steuerstaat: Geschichte der Öffentlichen Finanzen vom 18: Jahrhundert bis heute (Munich, 2005), 4546Google Scholar.

54 Geoffrey Jones and Christina Lubinski, “Managing Political Risk in Global Business: Beiersdorf, 1914–1990,” Enterprise & Society (forthcoming); James, Family Capitalism.

55 Das Spezial-Archiv der Deutschen Wirtschaft Verlag Hoppenstedt & Co. ed., Handbuch der Gross-Unternehmen 1960, vols. 1 and 2 (Berlin, 1960)Google Scholar.

56 Subsidiaries were included in their parent company's entry. In twenty-five cases (8 percent), the question of a majority owner could not be answered. In eight out of the 165 family influenced businesses (5 percent), ownership was split between two families.

57 Bank, Steven A. and Cheffins, Brian R., “The Corporate Pyramid Fable,” Business History Review 84, no. 3 (2010): 435–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 Howaldt, Jens, Gefahren der GmbH & Co: KG (Hamburg, 1965)Google Scholar; Ippen, Dirk, Die GmbH & Co: KG als Inhaberin sämtlicher Geschäftsanteile ihrer allein persönlich haftenden GmbH-Komplementärin (Münster, 1967)Google Scholar; Rüber, Bernd, Die GmbH & Co: KG, ihre gesellschafts rechtlichen Vorzüge und ihre Gefahren für die Gesellschaftsgläubiger (Tübingen, 1973)Google Scholar.

59 Lipartito and Morii, “Rethinking the Separation of Ownership from Management,” 4. For the literature on private benefits of control, see Demsetz and Lehn, “Structure of Corporate Ownership”; Dyck and Zingales, “Private Benefits of Control.”

60 Eichengreen, Barry J., ed., Europe's Post-War Recovery (Cambridge, U.K., 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schildt, Axel, Siegfried, Detlef, and Lammers, Karl Christian, eds., Dynamische Zeiten: Die 60er Jahre in den beiden deutschen Gesellschaften (Hamburg, 2000)Google Scholar; Schröter, Harm G., “Von der Teilung zur Wiedervereinigung, 1945–2000,” in Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeschichte: Ein Jahrtausend im Überblick, ed. North, Michael (Munich, 2000), 351420Google Scholar.

61 Bundesamt, Statistisches, ed., Statistisches Jahrbuch für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2008/Statistical Yearbook 2008 for the Federal Republic of Germany (Wiesbaden, 2008), 626Google Scholar.

62 Lubinski, , Familienunternehmen in Westdeutschland; Paul Erker, The Dachser Logistics Company: Global Competition and the Strength of the Family Business (Frankfurt, 2008)Google Scholar.

63 Bayerisches Wirtschaftsarchiv München (BWA), Rodenstock Archives, F74-1994 Gesellschaftsvertrag der KG 1954–63; Lubinski, , Familienunternehmen in Westdeutschland, 98Google Scholar.

64 Schröter, “Von der Teilung zur Wiedervereinigung.”

65 Lindlar, Ludger and Holtfrerich, Carl-Ludwig, “Germany's Export Boom at Fifty: An Enduring Success Story?” in The Postwar Transformation of Germany: Democracy, Prosperity, and Nationhood, ed. Brady, John, Crawford, Beverly, and Wiliarty, Sarah Elise (Ann Arbor, 1999), 163201Google Scholar.

66 Giersch, Herbert, Paqué, Karl-Heinz, and Schmieding, Holger, The Fading Miracle: Four Decades of Market Economy in Germany (Cambridge, U.K., 1994), 116Google Scholar.

67 For more examples, see Simon, Hermann, Hidden Champions: Lessons from 500 of the World's Best Unknown Companies (Boston, 1996)Google Scholar.

68 For transfers of social and cultural capital within family businesses, see Cabrera-Suárez, Katiuska, Saá-Pérez, Petra De, and García-Almeida, Desiderio, “The Succession Process from a Resource- and Knowledge-Based View of the Family Firm,” Family Business Review 14, no. 1 (2001): 3748CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lambrecht, Johan, “Multigenerational Transition in Family Businesses: A New Explanatory Model,” Family Business Review 18, no. 4 (2005): 267–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Berghoff, , “The End of Family Business?274Google Scholar; Lubinski, , Familienunternehmen in Westdeutschland, 225–64Google Scholar.

70 e.V., Deutsches Aktieninstitut, DAI-Factbook 2009: Statistiken, Analysen und Graphiken zu Aktionären, Aktiengesellschaften und Börsen (Frankfurt, 2009)Google Scholar.

71 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ed., OECD Economic Surveys 1994–1995: Germany (Paris, 1995), 117Google Scholar.

72 Thomes, Paul, “Industriekredit und Kapitalmarktfinanzierung in den Westzonen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland von 1945 bis 1990,” in Bankkredit oder Kapitalmarkt: Alternativen der Industriefinanzierung in Deutschland, ed. Archiv, Bankhistorisches, Beiheft 40 (Stuttgart, 2002), 3954Google Scholar.

73 For an overview, see Smith, , The German Economy, 319415Google Scholar.

74 Berghoff, , “The End of Family Business?274–75Google Scholar.

75 Borchardt, Knut and Buchheim, Christoph, “Die Wirkung der Marshallplan-Hilfe in Schlüsselbranchen der deutschen Wirtschaft,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 35, no. 3 (1987): 317–47Google Scholar; Pohl, Manfred, Wiederaufbau: Kunst und Technik der Finanzierung, 1947–1953: Die ersten Jahre der Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (Frankfurt, 1973)Google Scholar; Hardach, Gerd, Der Marshallplan: Auslandshilfe und Wiederaufbau in Westdeutschland, 1948–1953 (Munich, 1994)Google Scholar.

76 Smith, , The German Economy, 93–4Google Scholar.

77 Beckert, , Inherited Wealth; Wolfram Scheffler and Christoph Spengel, “Erbschaftsteuerbelastung im internationalen Vergleich,” Betriebs-Berater (2004): 967–74Google Scholar.

78 Ullmann, , Der deutsche Steuerstaat, 46–7, 103, 11, 16, 51, 207, 20Google Scholar.

79 Eckstein, Otto and Tanzi, Vito, “Comparison of European and United States Tax Structures and Growth Implications,” in The Role of Direct and Indirect Taxes in the Federal Reserve System, ed. National Bureau of Economic Research (1964), 217–94, 228Google Scholar.

80 For a more detailed account, see Giersch, Paqué, and Schmieding, Fading Miracle. For a focus on specific industries, see Abelshauser, Werner, Der Ruhrkohlebergbau seit 1945: Wiederaufbau, Krise, Anpassung (Munich, 1984)Google Scholar; and Lindner, Stephan H., Den Faden verloren: Die westdeutsche und die französische Textilindustrie auf dem Rückzug (1930/45–1990) (Munich, 2001)Google Scholar.

81 Giersch, Paqué, and Schmieding, Fading Miracle; Thomes, , “Industriekredit und Kapitalmarktfinanzierung”; Wimmer, Rudolf et al. , Familienunternehmen—Auslaufmodell oder Erfolgstyp (Wiesbaden, 2005)Google Scholar.

82 e.V., Deutsches Aktieninstitut, DAI-Factbook, 04–1Google Scholar.

83 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ed., OECD Economic Surveys 1985–1986: Germany (Paris, 1986), 48–9Google Scholar.

84 Smith, , The German Economy, 354Google Scholar.

85 About family corporations, see Schürmann, Walter and Körfgen, Kurt, Familienunternehmen auf dem Weg zur Börse: Ein Leitfaden für potentielle Börsenkandidaten mit Beispielen aus der Praxis (Munich, 1997)Google Scholar.

86 Klein, , “Family Businesses in Germany,” 170Google Scholar.

87 Berghoff, , “The End of Family Business?291Google Scholar; Pfannenschwarz, Armin, Nachfolge und Nicht-Nachfolge in Familienunternehmen: Band I: Ambivalenzen und Lösungsstrategien beim familieninternen Generationswechsel (Heidelberg, 2006)Google Scholar.

88 Borghardt, Liane, “Papis Liebling: Töchter erobern in Familienunternehmen den Chefsessel,” Wirtschaftswoche, 7 Jan. 2008Google Scholar; Eifert, Christiane, “Wann werden Frauen Unternehmenserbinnen? Nachfolgeregelungen in deutschen Familienunternehmen in der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts,” Feministische Studien 2 (2007): 243–57Google Scholar; Nischak, Almute, “ ‘Leider nur ein Mädchen': Genderaspekte bei der Nachfolge in Familienunternehmen,” in Familienunternehmen verstehen: Gründer, Gesellschafter und Generationen, ed. von Schlippe, Arist, Nischak, Almute, and El Hachimi, Mohammed (Göttingen, 2008), 8491Google Scholar.

89 Klein, , “Family Businesses in Germany,” 170Google Scholar.

90 For this option, see Hurst, James W., The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States, 1780–1970 (Clark, N.J., 2004), 70Google Scholar.

91 Schürmann and Körfgen, Familienunternehmen auf dem Weg zur Börse.

92 BWA Deckel Archives N06-254 Organisation der Firma 1940; Lubinski, , Familienunternehmen, 8791Google Scholar.

93 Ibid., 90.

94 This distinguishes Germany from most other European countries, such as Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal, and most Eastern European countries.

95 German trusts Web site: http://www.stiftungen.org/de/news-wissen, no. stiftungslexikon, no. familienstiftungen. html (accessed: 10 Oct. 2011.)

96 Anheier, Helmut K. and List, Regina, A Dictionary of Civil Society, Philanthropy, and the Non-Profit Sector (London, 2005), 28Google Scholar.

97 James, , Family Capitalism, 384Google Scholar.

15
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Path Dependency and Governance in German Family Firms
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Path Dependency and Governance in German Family Firms
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Path Dependency and Governance in German Family Firms
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *